Free speech
Sir: I found your editorial of 10 February 'Racial hatred and free speech' most disturbing, not so much because of your opposition to the Race Relations law —in that you have been very consistent — but in the arguments you present in support of your case.
It is no accident that the introduction of the Race Relations Act occurred at a time When people like Robert Relf began to revive Nazi propaganda that had a generation earlier resulted in the mass murder of millions of people. A society that ignores such a lesson is doomed to relive that awful experience. Parliament — whatever the °PPosition — acted with great wisdom and courage in recognising the nexus between racial incitement and genocide. Nor have you produced any valid arguments as to why Parliament should be more concerned with the effect of words on people's behaviour than on their feelings. Our civil law protects individuals against defamatory language; why shouldn't our criminal law protect minorities against abusive and insulting words that are certain to cause them much anguish and hurt? And even if one could distinguish between physical and mental injury, why should we countenance such a distinction? I wonder whether in balancing the needs of free speech against the damage that hateful words can cause, you have considered the effect of a public declaration such as Relf's about 'niggers and jungles' on young children — white or black.
A civilised society is judged by the way it treats its strangers. Your position on the question of racial hatred is a step back into the dark ages.
Jacob Gewirtz Executive Director, Defence and Group Relations Department, The Board of Deputies of British Jews. London WC1.
Previous page
